W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2002

Re: Outstanding Issues - an RDF statement is an assertion

From: Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 22:27:05 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020219221928.03948530@joy.songbird.com>
To: fmanola@mitre.org
Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Putting it in the MT is a possibility, but it's not really a semantic 
comment, as such, but a social comment ("RDF is intended to achieve 
_this_").  Having formal semantics is (part of) how we achieve the goal in 
question.

I see a big difference between the putative "master spec" and the 
primer:  the master spec is normative;  the primer isn't.   (If I'm wrong 
about that, I think the primer is mis-named.)

As for covering all the topics -- the goal isn't to 'cover' them, so much 
as to say just enough about them to help a reader find the relevant 
documents of the specification suite.  As much as possible of this document 
would be of the form "for information about ... see ...".  (Though, if we 
had a master document, we might then find it expedient to migrate some 
other parts into it, but that's another matter.)

Anyway, I'm not wedded to this idea, just trying to see if we can't focus 
some debate on what's needed ... so thanks for your comments.

#g
--

At 04:38 PM 2/19/02 -0500, Frank Manola wrote:
>I think the fact that a statement is an assertion should certainly be
>covered in the Model Theory somewhere shouldn't it?  That's our basic
>"semantics" document.  If it isn't clear enough right now, maybe we can
>make it clearer (?)  The Master Specification sounds to me like the
>Primer, but (a) covering more than is currently there and (b) in less
>text.  I guess I don't understand the intended distinction here (not to
>mention how you're going to cover all those topics in 3-4 pages).
>However, far be it from me to discourage anyone from writing something!
>
>--Frank
>
>
>Graham Klyne wrote:
> >
> > At 05:05 PM 2/12/02 +0000, Brian McBride wrote:
> > >>>rdfms-assertion: RDF is not just a data model; an RDF statement is an
> > >>>assertion.
> > >>>
> > >>>The director has an architectural requirement that we say something
> > >>>about this.  We need someone to draft some appropriate words.  Any 
> volunteers?
> > >>
> > >>I think the statement should be kept simple.  I offered some words a
> > >>while back:
> > >>
> > >>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0560.html
> > >>
> > >>[[[
> > >>RDF is intended to convey assertions that are meaningful to the 
> extent that
> > >>they may, in appropriate contexts, be used to express the terms of 
> binding
> > >>agreements.
> > >>]]]
> > >
> > >That sounds like a volunteer.  Thanks Graham.  Could you identify the best
> > >place to put this text, and bring a proposal to the WG to resolve the
> > >issue please?
> >
> > I've been thinking about this, and I'm not sure which document it belongs
> > in.  Or, more to the point, I think we may be missing a document in our
> > expected set of deliverables.
> >
> > We have:
> >
> >    RDF syntax
> >    RDF model theory
> >    RDF schema
> >    RDF test cases
> >    RDF primer
> >
> > But, as far as I'm aware, there's no master document to pull them all 
> together.
> >
> > If there were, that's where I'd suggest putting the above words -- in a
> > prominent section all on their own, headed something like "Using RDF to
> > express firm agreements".
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Let's suppose we agree that some kind of master document would be Good
> > Thing.  What would it look like?  I think it would be a short document
> > (maybe as little as 3-4 pages), something like this:
> >
> >    RDF Master Specification
> >
> >    1. Introduction
> >       What is RDF?
> >       Overview of RDF design goals
> >         [[[include above words about assertions here]]]
> >
> >    2. Overview of RDF
> >       RDF graph model
> >       RDF vocabulary (use of URI-references and XML namespaces)
> >
> >    3. Elements of RDF specification
> >       XML syntax
> >       schema
> >       formal semantics/model theory
> >       RDF test cases
> >       (each of these would contain a short description and a
> >        citation of the corresponding specification document.)
> >
> >    4. References
> >       Normative - citing other RDF specification documents only?
> >       Others - background info
> >
> > It might also be appropriate to move the glossary from the primer to an
> > appendix of this document.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Another deliverable document may not be a Good Idea right now, but since
> > you asked that's my first proposal.  Otherwise, I think we might (a)
> > include the assertion words in all of the RDF specification documents (not
> > nice), or (b) arbitrarily pick one of the specification documents as the
> > "lead" document and put the assertion words in its introductory sections.
> >
> > #g
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > Graham Klyne                    Baltimore Technologies
> > Strategic Research              Content Security Group
> > <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>    <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
> >                                  <http://www.baltimore.com>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>--
>Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
>202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
>mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-8752

------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne                    Baltimore Technologies
Strategic Research              Content Security Group
<Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>    <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
                                 <http://www.baltimore.com>
------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2002 17:30:37 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:17 EDT